Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 20:04:07 02/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2003 at 21:05:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I think the math is simple. If you believe that overclocking _can_ cause a >failure, then doing it long enough is going to guarantee a failure. The only >issue is whether it is a detected failure or not. Many are not. The odds of having a car crash each time you drive are probably greater than an overclocking failure (detected or not) that may happen only one of a billion times a certain instruction runs. That's not going to stop you from driving, nor does it mean that driving long enough will guarantee a crash. An overclocking failure isn't going to cause injury or death either. Further, a car usually costs more than a computer. So you gamble with your car, your life, and the life and property of others every time you drive, in an activity where the odds of failure aren't very favorable in the long run. However, you're afraid to gamble with what could be a cheap piece of hardware, in an activity where nobody has the potential to get hurt or die, and the odds of failure are middling at best. Now, in case my argument is misconstrued _again_, I'll try to clarify. I am not advocating overclocking. I do not overclock myself. I am _only_ trying to point out the logical fallacies in the arguments that overclocking is either necessary for certain systems or that it is an absolutely unsafe activity.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.